I can't speak for everyone, but personally I lean toward her because she's a completely known factor that represents a fairly moderate path that promises a general lack of crazy. In a race that I currently see devoid of anyone I actually WANT in the white house, she's the best option. Bernie is a starry eyed idealist, which is great for feel good Hollywood but not as endearing for national leadership. Having watched Obama founder on basic stuff like health care in a democratic legislature, I don't think Sanders will accomplish anything with socialism in a split government and I fear the outcome for our politics if he tries. I would prefer stability and small improvements to grand disasters.

In short, he has some good messages but I don't think he'd be able to actually carry them through.

Personally I'd rather give someone with ideals a chance and see him fail than give someone without ideals a chance to plod on with business as usual. The first case at least allows for a chance to go beyond mediocracy. At least Sanders is trying. All Clinton is trying is triangulating whatever focus group promises the most votes.

And if you want to avoid grand disasters, Sanders may actually be your man. Last really grand disaster for the US I recall is the financial crisis of 2008. A repeat of that would cost the American economy and taxpayer untold billions of dollars. So far I don't see regulation strong enough to stop something similar from happening again, and given where Clinton's campaign money comes from I wouldn't bet on her to do anything about Wall Street excesses.

“I think she did reasonably well,” Mrs. Fiorina said on ABC’s “Good Morning America.” “I think it demonstrates that she won’t be held accountable until we have a nominee in a general election debate who will hold her accountable.”

Hold her accountable for what exactly? If they haven't been able to find anything in the previous what....six? investigations what the heck does the GOP think they are going to hold her accountable for? It boggles my mind.

Hold her accountable for what exactly? If they haven't been able to find anything in the previous what....six? investigations what the heck does the GOP think they are going to hold her accountable for? It boggles my mind.

It reminds me a bit of the CIA "enhanced interogation" program. Even when the interrogators would tell headquarters they were completely convinced someone didn't know anything, headquarters would usually tell them to waterboard him some more because they were certain the guy knew something, even if there was no rational basis for that assumption.

Providing complete, absolute proof that you do not know something is kinda difficult, and even those on the commitee who are not out to get Clinton have perhaps fully convinced themselves by now that she must be holding something back. Plus, admitting that there is no "smoking gun" would be akin to admitting that you have waste a whole lot of time - and taxpayer dollars. Doing that would take some courage. The longer these procedings take, the more some will fixate on looking for something that just isn't there, instead of admitting what must look like failure to them.

Seriously, he provided her a stage to show the world how she handles stress and pressure. And then he let her perform for eleven hours. Eleven hours. By all accounts, she remained calm, focused, strong, and skilled in face of the questions. Questions which by Gowdy's own admission were pointless and futile.

Seven on one, and she prevailed you failed.

The conservatives still won't vote for her, and the liberals will. This hearing doesn't change any of that. But the key independent voters have seen this side of Clinton. Because you, Gowdy, gave her that opening. And I suspect many were impressed by her.

In public and in private, Mr. Bush has invoked another example of late, recalling an encounter in October 2007 with Sen. John McCain at the Atlanta airport.

“He’s carrying his bag, he has no aide, he’s running for president, he has no staff,” Mr. Bush said in New Hampshire last month. “The campaign was basically over. Everybody said it. All the pundits said, ‘It’s over, why waste your time?’”

So, you say you're like McCain? Smart move there, buddy. You seem to have forgotten one rather important fact.

They are not going to admit they were wrong. It would be kind of hard to keep selling the 'Hillary is untrustworthy' line.

You could always try the "yes, we messed up, but that's not our fault. It's because those Washington insiders game the system to their advantage" line, at least if you haven't been in politics as long as Clinton. Admit defeat, but blame it one the system you are fighting against. In the hands of a real spin artist it might actually work.

You could always try the "yes, we messed up, but that's not our fault. It's because those Washington insiders game the system to their advantage" line, at least if you haven't been in politics as long as Clinton. Admit defeat, but blame it one the system you are fighting against. In the hands of a real spin artist it might actually work.

I ran across an article somewhere (and can't find it again for the life of me) that said that they've spent more time investigating Benghazi than the 9/11 attacks.

That second graph there is making my inner statistician bounce off the walls, because it is awfully (so probably intentionally misleadingly) disproportionate. The length of the black bar for Bengazhi has no logical correlation, either in money or time, to the other committees listed there.

I ran across an article somewhere (and can't find it again for the life of me) that said that they've spent more time investigating Benghazi than the 9/11 attacks.

See? That only goes to show how good that Clinton woman is at hding stuff! She even hides things better than Al Qaeda or they would have gotten to the bottom of her lies long ago! Goes to show how evil she is!

*coughs and loses the fake outrage in his voice*

The Democrats on the Committee claim the investigation has cost more than 4.8 million, so far. Source: http://democrats.benghazi.house.gov/ You can find all the previous reports on Benghazi there too.

“If this election is about how we’re going to fight to get nothing done,” Mr. Bush said, then “I don’t want any part of it. I don’t want to be elected president to sit around and see gridlock just become so dominant that people literally are in decline in their lives. That is not my motivation.”

He added, “I’ve got a lot of really cool things I could do other than sit around, being miserable, listening to people demonize me and me feeling compelled to demonize them. That is a joke. Elect Trump if you want that.”

Boo-hoo. Seriously, show some backbone. Be Presidential. One of your main opponents just trounced seven Congresspeople in an eleven hour hearing.